When we passed along word of reports that Microsoft's next console would use an Internet-connected account to stop used game sales earlier this week, the vast majority of commenters were heavily against the idea. It turns out they have an ally in a major game retailer that doesn't often get much love from the Internet throngs.

GameStop is taking to the press to try to highlight just how damaging a used-game-free system would be to a hardware maker's brand. Speaking to Bloomberg, GameStop spokesman Matt Hodges said the company's surveys of customers show that they would be much less likely to purchase a console that didn't let them buy or sell their used games.

“We know the desire to purchase a next-generation console would be significantly diminished if new consoles were to prohibit playing pre-owned games, limit portability, or not play new physical games,” Hodges said.

Though GameStop hasn't released specific numbers from the survey, Hodge's statement definitely gels with the reaction that the used-game blocking idea received from online forums and writers. Then again, GameStop isn't exactly an uninterested, neutral observer in this matter. The company makes roughly half of its profits by reselling used games for much more than it pays for them, and GameStop stock dropped about 6 percent immediately following the Edge report (though it has mostly recovered since then).

Still, gamers committed to the idea that physical games should be theirs to buy and sell should take the PR help wherever they can get it. If Microsoft hasn't completely finalized this rumored design decision yet, the public reaction to the mere hint of it should have the company thinking twice.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

253 Reader Comments

Not that I'm unabashedly defending GameStop here, but I see their point. There are some people who don't have the money to be spending $60 on every game they buy, nor are they in any rush to buy it on Day 1 either. Some people thrive on getting the game at a discounted, even if it is used. Others, like some people I know, will buy a game, play it, then trade it in to get something else... They kind of see it as "Renting" a game long term. There are even others (and I'd probably classify myself here) who like collecting games, and don't always get games when they come out. I've managed to get quite a few games over the years that perhaps slipped under my radar, and by the time I'm interested in getting it, it's no longer available other than in the used game market. The fact that there WAS a used game market allowed me to get those titles in the first place.

You have to understand that the people who make games don't make any money from such sales. Therefore, used game sames are useless to them. In fact, they're worse than useless, as people can buy used games instead of new games, so its actually competing with themselves, except unlike competition between two titles they produce, its the same title and one way, they don't get paid.

So really, they have no reason at all to care about used game sales in a positive manner. Killing used games sales is viewed as a good thing by them.

Quote:

Open platforms like Ouya look better with every day that the two big console makers act like they invented gaming.

Firstly, the Ouya is garbage.

Secondly, there are three - Nintendo. And they actually make good first party games to boot.

Quote:

You know what? If you put in a system that your customers don't want, whether you enable it by default or not, then you are going to lose customers, and I will be one of them. I have a fairly decent disposable income, I currently have a Wii, a PS3, and X-Box 360, two DS's, a 3DS, a $2k gaming computer for the wife and a $3k gaming computer for myself (that is what they cost to build when new, not likely the current value btw). The fact that you are even considering this means that I will at least hold off on purchasing your new system. If you actually go through with this crazy scheme, I will not purchase your system, no matter WHAT exclusive games you get. Remember the N64? Nintendo had gotten to big for their britches and made a stupid licensing decision, and they LOST that generation, HARD. In today's market, you might not be able to make a misstep that big and still recover. It's not that MS isn't big enough, it's that it may no longer be lucrative. Then the X-Box group gets rolled into the Surface group, and you are set to make clones of Fruit Ninja.

Uh, no.

Why did the N64 suffer? Because it used cartridges. It meant no loading times, but it increased costs for developers and decreased storage space. Everything else just didn't matter by comparison.

You couldn't port games to the N64 from the other systems because the storage space on a cartridge is laughable compared to a CD. The N64 was the strongest of its generation, and had the best games, but it didn't have CDs and the developers all wanted CDs. So Nintendo started on their long tradition of making good games and third party developers ignoring them.

Quote:

The retail markets make very little off of new games in a sagging retail existence. The retailers are reselling these used games to try and make up for lost value from these initial sales from the manufacturers and designers. So they want the used games to carry on to make up for a very thin margin of profit on newer games.

Uh, well, the actual solution is very simple: retail dies. Games producers use digital distribution, either direct or indirect, to get their games to customers. There are no resales of digital.

It solves the problem. Retail just doesn't like it because it kills retail. You can even continue selling things through Amazon and the like.

Quote:

Sell the direct download at a steep discount compared to the disc version. The discount only has to be more than Gamestop pays to buyback a used game.

So like, $5?

Quote:

Except MS sells their consoles at a loss. They make up the loss buy selling software. If consumers know they can't get money back from the games they buy. They'll be less likely to buy. So if someone only buys a new Xbox just to watch Netflix (which is insane) MS will never recouped their losses.

This is simply untrue.

People will rage about it, but in the end, the fact that you can't resell your games is actually really irrelevant to almost all end users. The biggest impact is the fact that you cannot buy used games... but the impact felt from that primarily isn't felt for a year or two afterwards.

Quote:

MW3 and Black Ops 2 both made it to $1b in revenue in a little over 2 weeks of sales. According to this: http://kotaku.com/5407981/how-much-did- ... -warfare-2 the real development budget is around $50m. So let's take either Black Ops 2 or MW3, both of which earned $1b in a manner of days, and divide that by $50m. We end up with what? Each game paying for itself 20x over in just a matter of days.

Uh... you have to include advertising budget in there. Advertising is another cost. The idea that it isn't a "real" cost is utter nonsense. The reason these games are popular is because they are heavily advertised. So no, they're making like 5x profit. Great right?

Well, consider what happens if a game that costs $200 million ever flops.

MOST games are mediocre.

Quote:

So, again, if a game cost $50m to make and paid for itself 20x over within two weeks of release, why does it still cost $60 more than a year and a half after release? And why should somebody pay that much instead of buying a used copy for $15?

Because they can't buy a used copy.

And why shouldn't it? They have the right to set their price. YOU have the right not to buy it. You don't have the right to play MW2.

I just choose to skip those games.

Look, the truth is that it is all manufactured outrage - people don't actually care that much, at least not up front, when it will actually matter.

I think the Game Developers will be hit the hardest, as well as Gamestop.....as alot of people will start buying games by review or word of mouth and titles that suck will tank in sales almost immediately.

I think the Game Developers will be hit the hardest, as well as Gamestop.....as alot of people will start buying games by review or word of mouth and titles that suck will tank in sales almost immediately.

People already do this. If you buy a terrible game, you can't sell it back anyway because they won't want it, or will only pay a very marginal amount for it - being out $55 vs $60 isn't a big difference, whereas being out 0 vs either of those is.

I thought we already went through this argument before with music. I remember record companies and some musicians (Garth Brooks if I recall correctly) being pissed off that you could sell CDs back to music stores. They tried to stop it but it was decided to be perfectly legal to resell a music CD if you no longer wanted it. Just like you can resell a DVD or Blu-Ray. Just like you can resell a car. Do you think Warner Bros is happy that you bought a used Matrix Blu-Ray? Do you think Ford is happy you bought a used Mustang? Who cares. I paid for it and if I don't want it then why can't I sell it? It seems only software companies somehow have the special power to stop consumers reselling the product they purchased. Oh yeah, I didn't buy anything. I bought a license. OK. So what's to stop Warner Bros records from saying the same thing when I buy a music CD then? What's to stop Toyota from saying I don't REALLY own the car, I just bought a license to use it. If Sony and MS do this then I'm done with consoles. I'm not happy about Steam either but at least they sell games wildly cheap and Valve is a company I actually like.

I thought we already went through this argument before with music. I remember record companies and some musicians (Garth Brooks if I recall correctly) being pissed off that you could sell CDs back to music stores. They tried to stop it but it was decided to be perfectly legal to resell a music CD if you no longer wanted it. Just like you can resell a DVD or Blu-Ray. Just like you can resell a car. Do you think Warner Bros is happy that you bought a used Matrix Blu-Ray? Do you think Ford is happy you bought a used Mustang? Who cares. I paid for it and if I don't want it then why can't I sell it? It seems only software companies somehow have the special power to stop consumers reselling the product they purchased. Oh yeah, I didn't buy anything. I bought a license. OK. So what's to stop Warner Bros records from saying the same thing when I buy a music CD then? What's to stop Toyota from saying I don't REALLY own the car, I just bought a license to use it. If Sony and MS do this then I'm done with consoles. I'm not happy about Steam either but at least they sell games wildly cheap and Valve is a company I actually like.

Note that some of these are not like others. Ford actually IS happy if you buy a used Mustang, as you end up buying parts to fix it with from them.

The push is coming from content makers, particularly of content which is disposable.

If selling used games is not allowed, should they not do the same with consoles? Don´t allow used consoles, how about TVs? Cars? Houses?

Hell, why should someone be allowed to buy a used house or land?

Im curious how Microsoft or Sony plans to battle this legally. Will they argue because its a digital product? Then even Netflix would be illegal by this same principle, as the same content is streamed to multiple viewers at the same time.

There is absolutely no way in the this world that Microsoft, Sony or game developers would win in a court of law against someone in a lawsuit. They can´t legally defend the position to block someone that purchased a game from selling it again or someone buying a used game.

Its impossible. No judge would rule in their favor as this would create a precedent that would need to be applied to almost anything we know today that can be purchased in a non new state.

Also, not sure why everyone comments here about Gamestop. Most used games are sold on Ebay and even Amazon.

This would basically block rental of games as well, which I never used before, but movies where rented for decades so far and I don´t see how a game is so different.

Used games are the Big Deal for me. I've only rented a couple of 360 games, but a bunch I have were bought used. There is a zero percent chance I'll buy a new Xbox if I can't rent or buy used games for it. I certainly hope Microsoft gets that straight for now and the foreseeable future.

I still haven't heard anything about 360 compatibility in a new Xbox. I may need to buy several 360s instead anyway...

simple. won't buy a an xbox, or ps4, or any system that tells me what I can and can't do with the product I purchased. Since, imo, probably less than 1 in every 100 games on these consoles is worth playing anyways... I can live with that.

I take neither side in this kerfluffle. GameStop is about as horrible a company as I could imagine. Bad for game developers, bad for consumers, bad for their employees (by all reports). I just...can't ever root for them. Microsoft, on the other hand, is going down a dangerous, dangerous road with this.

I don't mind buying digital. I don't mind not being able to re-sell games. I understand that people do want that right, and in terms of physical discs, they should ALWAYS have that right. For digital licenses...eh. I don't buy apps from the App Store with the expectation that I can re-sell them. Nor the Google Play store. Nor through Steam. However, I DO expect to be able to run my games without always-on DRM. That's what will rankle my fur. Oh, I just moved and the internet guy isn't coming for a week? Maybe I can play ga....oh wait, no. No I can't.

The same is often true with Steam (having to launch it in Offline mode is a PITA when you forget to do it ahead of time).

But, as others have said...Steam also has the best deals around, makes their content available on multiple devices, and is all-around fluffy and wonderful. If Microsoft is smart (and there's no guarantees on that), they'll sell physical discs at full price, and digital copies at PC prices. Or actually, if they're REALLY smart, they'll pull an Amazon and undercut Steam altogether, and pay devs the difference, just to engender goodwill with customers.

And if they're even smarter, they'll do it all while allowing purchases for games that can run on Windows transfer over, so you can buy a game for your XBox and PC at the same time, at the same (or at least similar) price as you can on Steam, making the XBox/Windows Store the best place to buy games.

I'm not an open-source absolutist by any means...but if Microsoft insists on me having always-on DRM, and the Steam Box lets me play the games I've bought even if my internet is down...well, honestly, I'll probably end up buying both boxes. Where I actually spend money to buy my games though...well, that's easy. Since everyone I play games with has an Xbox, multiplayer games would go there.

Everything else? That goes where I can get my content the easiest...and cheapest. So Microsoft, if you're reading, know this: I'm cool with not being able to resell digital games. Just make it worth my while. And don't pull any online DRM bullshit. There's a reason Ubisoft doesn't get my money anymore. If you don't want my money either...well, do what you want.

I thought we already went through this argument before with music. I remember record companies and some musicians (Garth Brooks if I recall correctly) being pissed off that you could sell CDs back to music stores. They tried to stop it but it was decided to be perfectly legal to resell a music CD if you no longer wanted it. Just like you can resell a DVD or Blu-Ray. Just like you can resell a car. Do you think Warner Bros is happy that you bought a used Matrix Blu-Ray? Do you think Ford is happy you bought a used Mustang? Who cares. I paid for it and if I don't want it then why can't I sell it? It seems only software companies somehow have the special power to stop consumers reselling the product they purchased. Oh yeah, I didn't buy anything. I bought a license. OK. So what's to stop Warner Bros records from saying the same thing when I buy a music CD then? What's to stop Toyota from saying I don't REALLY own the car, I just bought a license to use it. If Sony and MS do this then I'm done with consoles. I'm not happy about Steam either but at least they sell games wildly cheap and Valve is a company I actually like.

Note that some of these are not like others. Ford actually IS happy if you buy a used Mustang, as you end up buying parts to fix it with from them.

The push is coming from content makers, particularly of content which is disposable.

So how are auto parts any different from DLC's in this regard? If they get a legal mandate to effectively "butcher" the second hand market on games then what says that other markets won't follow suit? Making something worthless for resale is effectively the same as denying resale.The biggest thing is that this doesn't hit resale alone, it hits renting gifting and lending as well.

It seems to me that game devs/publishers think they are entitled to income every time a game changes hands while the reality is that they aren't even entitled to make a profit in the first place.

If selling used games is not allowed, should they not do the same with consoles? Don´t allow used consoles, how about TVs? Cars? Houses?

Hell, why should someone be allowed to buy a used house or land?

Because software is weird.

The answer, put simply, is that you don't own software any more than you own the text in a book you own; you own the book's physical manifestation. In the case of software, the physical manifestation is extremely abstract, which is why we don't really "own" software, we own a license to it (usually). We might own a CD or DVD or whatever which allows us to load said software onto our computer so that we can run it.

Now, whether or not all this is kosher remains to be seen, but its nothing new; games have been doing this for years. I know the AC games work that way at least, as do Blizzard games.

Its not the same as a physical object - you own a wrench, even if you don't own the patent on the design for the wrench. But in the case of software, the design and the software are identical. As such, you don't really own most software that you use.

If selling used games is not allowed, should they not do the same with consoles? Don´t allow used consoles, how about TVs? Cars? Houses?

Hell, why should someone be allowed to buy a used house or land?

Because software is weird.

The answer, put simply, is that you don't own software any more than you own the text in a book you own; you own the book's physical manifestation. In the case of software, the physical manifestation is extremely abstract, which is why we don't really "own" software, we own a license to it (usually). We might own a CD or DVD or whatever which allows us to load said software onto our computer so that we can run it.

Now, whether or not all this is kosher remains to be seen, but its nothing new; games have been doing this for years. I know the AC games work that way at least, as do Blizzard games.

Its not the same as a physical object - you own a wrench, even if you don't own the patent on the design for the wrench. But in the case of software, the design and the software are identical. As such, you don't really own most software that you use.

simple. won't buy a an xbox, or ps4, or any system that tells me what I can and can't do with the product I purchased. Since, imo, probably less than 1 in every 100 games on these consoles is worth playing anyways... I can live with that.

So then I'm assuming you also don't buy PC games (or software), or mobile games/apps at all, right?

This is just the console market catching up to the rest of the market.

This might just be the thing that pushes me away from gaming entirely. I will not buy a system or even a game that requires a constant internet connection (I wasn't interested in Diablo 3 but if I had been, that required connection thing would have been a dealbreaker), and I will not buy a piece of entertainment that I can't resell/lend/give away.

I don't get it. If the used game industry is such a threat to game publishers...

Why don't they get in on it? Why don't they buy back games to resell?They'd get instant feedback if the game sucked, and they could use the buy back to turn a profit by buying it back at a lower price because it's "used".

The game industry, in short, has little interest in anything that would force them to amp up their games and produce games that people will want to replay over and over, rather than merely reiterate Madden Warfare every single year.

And in a shocking turn of events Microsoft and Sony totaly ignore the public outcry and the public buys their nextgen consoles despite losing the ability to play used games. In other news; the sky is blue today ........

If games were far cheaper to begin with, then I'd have more sympathy for MS. However, the high cost of console games seems to be due to the high percentage MS charges for game testing and for profits taken in sales. The same games released on mobile platforms, steam etc are often cheaper initially or are discounted faster, right?

Thus, MS is only concerned with protecting its own antiquated business model.

My belief has always been that the battle is not over new / used games, but deep-down, it has always been about licensing. Do you own the game or do you license the game? The first sale doctrine has always been an issue for distributors because they don't control the physical product after it leaves their hands. What is the best way to get that under control? Create a system that forces control; create a system where you have the right to revoke someone's entire library of games, and make sure that everyone has signed away their rights to a class action lawsuit, just to ensure your power. It's inherent for a company to take as much as it can.

Now, I'm a person who buys both digital and hard copies of games. With digital games, I view them as more of a rental, so I go in knowing the ramifications. I have a massive Steam library which has probably cost me less than $200. If I somehow violate something in the strict EULA, they can take that away from me, so I will never put much money into the service. But for anything that I want longterm, I buy the disc. Why? Because I don't want some scoundrel of a corporation telling me that I cannot play the game I purchased for whatever reason (which could be as simple as shutting down their authentication servers 10-15 years from now).

For those who do not see this as a big deal - I believe that we are sacrificing our consumer rights by allowing things to go 100% to digital. Who here actually trusts Microsoft or Sony to be a good steward of your rights? These are the companies that stole your class action rights, and don't think for one second that they don't want more. As much as my rant may sound like an anti-corporation rant, it's not meant to be. I've been playing games since the Intellivision, and I've seen a massive anti-consumer shift as companies have gained the ability to monitor your every move via the Internet. If the consumers do not take a stand, then we will lose. I am encouraged to see the uproar here over the potential loss of the used game market, but I believe that the repercussions are much larger than the ability to sell a game back at half price or buy a game at a $5 discount.

The problem is that for most, this won't be an issue. Just like for most changes - see the privacy issues on Facebook for example, people complain, but the masses continue to not know (or care). It will be the same thing here. Most people won't notice or care enough to do anything about it.

I don't get it. If the used game industry is such a threat to game publishers...

Why don't they get in on it? Why don't they buy back games to resell?They'd get instant feedback if the game sucked, and they could use the buy back to turn a profit by buying it back at a lower price because it's "used".

Because they don't want to ever sell a game at a discount, even if they get all the profit. They'd rather sell a new copy of the game at $60 than a used on at $30 (after having bought it at $10)--even if that means $20 more of pure profit because they already sold the game once.

It's the same logic that asserts that every single pirated copy of something means a lost full-price sale of that same something. They're implicitly asserting that every single person who currently buys used games would buy just as many of those same games at full price, if there were no used option out there. So they don't want a cut of the profits from used sales, they want to eliminate used sales. I don't know whether they forgot about the basic supply/demand curve (you know, the one that has price along the bottom axis), or have been taking economics lessons from the underpants gnomes.

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less." - Maxim 29

Which doesn't preclude working with them. I'll agree that your enemies enemy isn't necessarily your friend, but they're prime recruiting ground for allies. Alliances are based on common goals, not 'liking' each other. That Maxim is just a way of saying you still need to keep an eye on your enemies enemy, not that you can't work with them.

Quite a few people are saying this is not going to work in the EU as it goes against the law. Can anyone tell me if it's possible to resell iOS apps you've purchased?

I have to admit after reading the ruling on this matter in the EU that I am actually really confused as to whether you are still considered to be in breach of contract if you resell non-transferrable licenses.

Drakkenmensch wrote:

The game industry, in short, has little interest in anything that would force them to amp up their games and produce games that people will want to replay over and over, rather than merely reiterate Madden Warfare every single year.

This is beyond stupid. Seriously. Do you even listen to yourself?

They make those games because people buy them. And there are THOUSANDS of new games, new IPs, that come out every single year.

This has nothing to do with anything relevant, and is you just foaming at the mouth.

PrimalxConvoy wrote:

If games were far cheaper to begin with, then I'd have more sympathy for MS. However, the high cost of console games seems to be due to the high percentage MS charges for game testing and for profits taken in sales. The same games released on mobile platforms, steam etc are often cheaper initially or are discounted faster, right?

Thus, MS is only concerned with protecting its own antiquated business model.

I'm looking forward to Ouya, steam box and ios living room gaming.

You don't really seem to understand this at all.

1) Who is pushing for this? The answer is NOT Microsoft or Sony. The answer is games developers.

2) The cause of higher prices on consoles is that you end up paying for the right to distribute on said consoles. Companies pay for this right because it is worth it to them.

3) There's really no reason to believe that prices will remain elevated on consoles if they feel that they need to lower them. If they felt that they were losing sales to Steam, they'd probably lower prices to compete.

4) Ouya is awful, as is, ultimately, every console. Want living room gaming? Plug your computer into your TV and get a long corded (or wireless) Xbox controller. Voila! Living room gaming. Indeed, you can already do this, and Steam even has a lazy interface for it.

Cigolorp wrote:

For those who do not see this as a big deal - I believe that we are sacrificing our consumer rights by allowing things to go 100% to digital. Who here actually trusts Microsoft or Sony to be a good steward of your rights? These are the companies that stole your class action rights, and don't think for one second that they don't want more. As much as my rant may sound like an anti-corporation rant, it's not meant to be. I've been playing games since the Intellivision, and I've seen a massive anti-consumer shift as companies have gained the ability to monitor your every move via the Internet. If the consumers do not take a stand, then we will lose. I am encouraged to see the uproar here over the potential loss of the used game market, but I believe that the repercussions are much larger than the ability to sell a game back at half price or buy a game at a $5 discount.

Paranoid much? Why yes, yes you are.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each solution.

woodelf wrote:

It's the same logic that asserts that every single pirated copy of something means a lost full-price sale of that same something. They're implicitly asserting that every single person who currently buys used games would buy just as many of those same games at full price, if there were no used option out there. So they don't want a cut of the profits from used sales, they want to eliminate used sales. I don't know whether they forgot about the basic supply/demand curve (you know, the one that has price along the bottom axis), or have been taking economics lessons from the underpants gnomes.

This is not really correct at all.

The reality is they make no money off of a used game sale or a pirated sale. Ergo, in both cases, they make zero money. In both cases, some people who buy used or get pirated copies would buy the game from them at whatever price point, were the alternative way of getting them unavailable. Thus they stand to make more money if they shut those down.

They do not labor under the illusion that they actually lose one sale for every pirated or used game sale, but they lose more than zero sales from every such transaction. They have no means of psychically determining whether you would have purchased it. However, in the case of piracy, they have every right to say "Yeah, we lost X" in court because that is the retail value, even if they would not have actually made X from sales - this is pretty standard, and is the same principle applied to stealing physical products as well - you might not have ever purchased it for $X, but the retail value was X so you are responsible for having stolen X.

The actual damages to the industry by piracy are pretty large, but obviously not equal to the retail value of all pirated versions, and varies considerably from item to item. I would guess that OS piracy of Windows is probably close to 90% of the retail value in damages, because you NEED an OS and Windows is THE OS, but on the other hand something like Photoshop is probably more like 10%, because a lot of people download it to make stupid gifs of cats, and if they couldn't pirate it most of them wouldn't actually pay $700 for it and would instead use some much cheaper, inferior solution like GIMP or just not do it at all.

The reality is they make no money off of a used game sale or a pirated sale. Ergo, in both cases, they make zero money. In both cases, some people who buy used or get pirated copies would buy the game from them at whatever price point, were the alternative way of getting them unavailable. Thus they stand to make more money if they shut those down.

If there were no used games and no discounts on those games ever, would they still get that full-priced sale anyway? The assumption that given only full-priced new purchase and no purchase at all the consumer WILL buy anyway is flawed.

I picked up a used copy of Dante's Inferno for 5$ a few weeks ago. I most certainly wouldn't have bought it new at full price if that opportunity hadn't been there. The company would have made zero money from me in either scenario.

For those who do not see this as a big deal - I believe that we are sacrificing our consumer rights by allowing things to go 100% to digital. Who here actually trusts Microsoft or Sony to be a good steward of your rights? These are the companies that stole your class action rights, and don't think for one second that they don't want more. As much as my rant may sound like an anti-corporation rant, it's not meant to be. I've been playing games since the Intellivision, and I've seen a massive anti-consumer shift as companies have gained the ability to monitor your every move via the Internet. If the consumers do not take a stand, then we will lose. I am encouraged to see the uproar here over the potential loss of the used game market, but I believe that the repercussions are much larger than the ability to sell a game back at half price or buy a game at a $5 discount.

Paranoid much? Why yes, yes you are.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each solution.

Yes, there are advantages to each solution. So how would obliterating one of the solutions (which you have stated has advantages) be good for the consumer?

Maybe I am paranoid, but the class action lawsuit EULA woke me up. It's as simple as this - as long as I hold the physical game disc in my hand, Activision, Sony, Microsoft, etc., have no say (outside of the current law) in how I use it. As soon as they hold the game in their hands, they have control of how I use their software. The removal of Linux by Sony, the clamp down by Sony on game sharing, the disabling of accounts for months that were hacked by the Microsoft/EA fiasco - all of these are examples of some of the downsides of going "all digital." I'm not saying that the goal of these companies is to steal your software, but simply that they are driven 100% by profit and will adjust accordingly as the law allows. Maybe you can ignore the trends, but I've begun to see these companies for what they are - an entity that is built to get as much money out of you as they can. I've been in the business world long enough to know that even a good business is one executive away from becoming a bad one...

If there were no used games and no discounts on those games ever, would they still get that full-priced sale anyway? The assumption that given only full-priced new purchase and no purchase at all the consumer WILL buy anyway is flawed.

I picked up a used copy of Dante's Inferno for 5$ a few weeks ago. I most certainly wouldn't have bought it new at full price if that opportunity hadn't been there. The company would have made zero money from me in either scenario.

You DO realize that I already answered this in the post, right? Because I did. Its immediately below the paragraph that you quoted.

Cigolorp wrote:

Yes, there are advantages to each solution. So how would obliterating one of the solutions (which you have stated has advantages) be good for the consumer?

Because, quite simply, physical media for distribution of software is growing increasingly obsolete. At some point, it will simply cease to happen.

Quote:

Maybe I am paranoid, but the class action lawsuit EULA woke me up. It's as simple as this - as long as I hold the physical game disc in my hand, Activision, Sony, Microsoft, etc., have no say (outside of the current law) in how I use it. As soon as they hold the game in their hands, they have control of how I use their software. The removal of Linux by Sony, the clamp down by Sony on game sharing, the disabling of accounts for months that were hacked by the Microsoft/EA fiasco - all of these are examples of some of the downsides of going "all digital." I'm not saying that the goal of these companies is to steal your software, but simply that they are driven 100% by profit and will adjust accordingly as the law allows. Maybe you can ignore the trends, but I've begun to see these companies for what they are - an entity that is built to get as much money out of you as they can. I've been in the business world long enough to know that even a good business is one executive away from becoming a bad one...

My belief has always been that the battle is not over new / used games, but deep-down, it has always been about licensing. Do you own the game or do you license the game? The first sale doctrine has always been an issue for distributors because they don't control the physical product after it leaves their hands. What is the best way to get that under control? Create a system that forces control; create a system where you have the right to revoke someone's entire library of games, and make sure that everyone has signed away their rights to a class action lawsuit, just to ensure your power. It's inherent for a company to take as much as it can.

Now, I'm a person who buys both digital and hard copies of games. With digital games, I view them as more of a rental, so I go in knowing the ramifications. I have a massive Steam library which has probably cost me less than $200. If I somehow violate something in the strict EULA, they can take that away from me, so I will never put much money into the service. But for anything that I want longterm, I buy the disc. Why? Because I don't want some scoundrel of a corporation telling me that I cannot play the game I purchased for whatever reason (which could be as simple as shutting down their authentication servers 10-15 years from now).

For those who do not see this as a big deal - I believe that we are sacrificing our consumer rights by allowing things to go 100% to digital. Who here actually trusts Microsoft or Sony to be a good steward of your rights? These are the companies that stole your class action rights, and don't think for one second that they don't want more. As much as my rant may sound like an anti-corporation rant, it's not meant to be. I've been playing games since the Intellivision, and I've seen a massive anti-consumer shift as companies have gained the ability to monitor your every move via the Internet. If the consumers do not take a stand, then we will lose. I am encouraged to see the uproar here over the potential loss of the used game market, but I believe that the repercussions are much larger than the ability to sell a game back at half price or buy a game at a $5 discount.

You perfectly reflected my sentiments here. The inevitable shift is towards non-resellable digital games, but I don't think that shift can without giving something to the consumer in return. Gamers have embraced Steam and iOS, both for different reasons. With iOS, there's the convenience and low cost. No one wants to have to deal with physical media for a cell phone (one of the many problems with the n-gage), and who cares if you cannot sell back a $1 game?

On the other hand, I think Steam was embraced because of the added value it gives to consumers (along with the half-life 2 trojan-horse tactics). I lose the ability to "own" games with Steam, but in return gain a convenient multi-platform library and social network that allows easy access to my full game library on any computer. That being said, I do take the fact the game is a digital download into account when purchasing, and pay considerably less for Steam games than I did for physical media ($15 has become a lot for me to spend on a game).

Unless I'm missing something about Microsoft's strategy here, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Obviously, the average consumer does not care about resale or digital rights management when making a console buying decision. However, there are key players in the success of a new console that do. I imagine that a large percentage of early adopters are hardcore gamers that do care about resale. Unless the lack of resale brings some other benefit such as disc-less play or lower cost games (yeah right), those gamers may rethink their choice of console accordingly. Additionally, pissing off Gamestop and other retailers with a used game trade just seems like a bad idea. If Xbox restricts used sales and PS and Wii do not, there is not much incentive to Gamestop to give much promotional effort and money to Xbox compared to the other platforms. I have no idea how many sales are provoked through those means, but it may harm the Xbox's chances out the gate.

One thing I haven't seen commented on yet is whether this is a way to keep up with the increasing cost of producing games. I don't feel "bad" for any large publisher that can spend tens of millions on a game, but obviously, it is becoming more costly to make a AAA game. If the two choices offered to the publishers are "increase game costs across the board" and "push digital sales, which decreases resale"...I'd think that most people can agree, raising prices would not make people happy.

The corrollary, of course, is that digital games must also provide some benefit. Steam does this through deep discounts. Microsoft can do this through cross-platform (Xbox to Windows 8) purchases that work on any device you want. Both can try to improve the hassle of downloading (Look to Microsoft Office, which downloads the important bits, then streams the rest in the background as those tasks are demanded for an idea of what could work better). To some degree, the ability to install on multiple devices as you travel ix already implemented (which is a nice thing) But at the end of the day, if there's no "benefit" to digital...then why would customers flock to it?

This is doubly true of always-on DRM. It has zero value-add. And I can guarantee, it will make me not want to buy games that require it-- whether digital purchases or physical copies. The better solution is, of course, to discout digital versions across the board to get customers used to it. You tell me my choice is either to go out to best buy and buy a $60 disc or sit at home and buy a $50 digital version? I'll pick the digital version every time. Especially if they're able to change the prices more quickly to spur sales, put on massive promotions, et cetera. I'm simple. I want to play games, and a good sale will make me check out games I'd otherwise have never bought.

Digital is better, in my opinion...but only if done right. Steam has gotten it right. Microsoft? Well, I guess we'll see. But very little could persuade me to buy a game with always-on DRM. So if Microsoft insists on it...well, I won't be playing many games there. If it's the publishers who can choose whether or not to do this...I'd probably boycott those publishers. Which is why I don't have a shiny copy of Assassin's Creed 3.

I keep hearing "I'm going to PC gaming" as a form of protest. I said it myself. But then I thought, "From Microsoft's point of view, what's the downside?" If you go to PC gaming, you inevitably end up purchasing a WIndows license and support Microsoft's partners in the Windows hardware ecosystem.

The only way this hurts them is if Valve's supposed Linux-based Steam Box takes off and attracts major game publisher support. But that's a big if.

I think this is an absurd conclusion.

The vast majority of Xbox owners have already purchased their PCs and Windows licenses, so the extra revenue MS gains from those defecting to PC gaming is small. Especially when Valve is raking in all the money on PC game sales rather than MS.

In the console space, MS makes their money from game sales (they get a cut from ALL games sold) and Xbox Live subscriptions. The XBL subs are $60 a year alone, which is about how much you'd be spending on Windows if you upgrade every few years.

They should make an ultimatum that if Microsoft blocks used games, which are a cornerstone of their business, they'll block Microsoft. There's Sony, Nintendo, the PC games... Other crowds eager to go in, but want someone to do it first... The pure announcement of such a block from the market and devalue of product in a shaky economy, it'd cost Microsoft far more than they'd ever extort -excuse me- earn from blocking resale of games, if any.